Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion

Religion For discussion about belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:56 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
They didn't become a new species, they are still finches. they are all under the same classification of Aves.
you know, every now and then you post something that reinforces the idea that you have absolutely no idea about anything to do with biology.
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 04:17 PM   #32
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
you know, every now and then you post something that reinforces the idea that you have absolutely no idea about anything to do with biology.
And he's supposed to be a medical lab supervisor. Scary, isn't it.
RNG is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 03:38 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Is gravity a theory or a fact? I think you are applying terms incorrectly here.
I don't know of any reputable scientist who in formal discussion would ever claim to know truths. Is gravity truth? In this case in fact the question isn't if an object will fall to the floor if you drop it, but whether masses attract each other with a certain force as is quantified in the theory of gravity.
Now, this theory is pretty strong in that it explains what we observe, it allows us to make predictions that turn out accurate, for which the Apollo astronauts will forever be grateful and it fits in with the general body of knowledge.
On the other hand, we have the theory of light being a wave. And the theory of light being a particle. Both right and both wrong by the criteria above. So it works but obviously that needs improvement, further work and is a work in progress.
The big bang theory is one that isn't as strong as gravity. But it does explain a lot of things that are observed. Now, it doesn't answer why it happened just as the theory of gravity doesn't answer why two masses attract each other. But we learn and try to improve and answer more of these questions.
And thus far I have never needed to invoke a "force" to satisfy myself. Some do. But even then, it is a long way from "a force" to the god of the bible.
It is altogether possible that we are differentiating between fact and theory from different angles or in a different context. Let me put it this way if it helps to clarify my position. NO gravity is not a "truth", nor it is a 100% guarantee except in the pure "laws" laid down by Isaac Newton. Gravity is PROBABILITY. If you throw an object into the air, it MAY return or it MAY NOT depending on a variety of factors. What true science serves to do best is to MAKE PREDICTIONS based upon observable phenomenon.

This is the rational analysis that "creation science" is based upon. That there is observable evidence of intelligent design. The same is true of the Big Bang, there is observable evidence that the universe may have at one time been constricted to an essence smaller than the head of a pin, or that it may have arisen out of a singularity. But Black Holes themselves are only a theory. In the end there is no conclusive scientific proof of either THEORY, because the event cannot be reproduced under controlled laboratory conditions, which is what science is designed to do. We are left instead to explore and weigh the PROBABILITIES.

When I see a building, my "scientific" mind alerts me to the probability that it did not happen on its own, or by a random collision of elements from the periodic table. I naturally gravitate to consider the probability of intelligent design. When I see evidence of the same intelligence in the natural way the universe operates, I lean rationally in the same direction.

No, I haven't conjured up an intelligent force that cannot be seen, but neither do I jump immediately to the irrational conclusion that because I cannot see something it must therefore not exist. The "unseen" element may be a result of my limited human perceptions. That also is a probability that enters into the equation.
Asimov is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 03:56 PM   #34
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
It is altogether possible that we are differentiating between fact and theory from different angles or in a different context. Let me put it this way if it helps to clarify my position. NO gravity is not a "truth", nor it is a 100% guarantee except in the pure "laws" laid down by Isaac Newton. Gravity is PROBABILITY. If you throw an object into the air, it MAY return or it MAY NOT depending on a variety of factors. What true science serves to do best is to MAKE PREDICTIONS based upon observable phenomenon.

This is the rational analysis that "creation science" is based upon. That there is observable evidence of intelligent design. The same is true of the Big Bang, there is observable evidence that the universe may have at one time been constricted to an essence smaller than the head of a pin, or that it may have arisen out of a singularity. But Black Holes themselves are only a theory. In the end there is no conclusive scientific proof of either THEORY, because the event cannot be reproduced under controlled laboratory conditions, which is what science is designed to do. We are left instead to explore and weigh the PROBABILITIES.

When I see a building, my "scientific" mind alerts me to the probability that it did not happen on its own, or by a random collision of elements from the periodic table. I naturally gravitate to consider the probability of intelligent design. When I see evidence of the same intelligence in the natural way the universe operates, I lean rationally in the same direction.

No, I haven't conjured up an intelligent force that cannot be seen, but neither do I jump immediately to the irrational conclusion that because I cannot see something it must therefore not exist. The "unseen" element may be a result of my limited human perceptions. That also is a probability that enters into the equation.
I disagree. If you throw something up, unless you manage to cause a conditions that exert a force equal to or greater than the force of gravity, it will fall back down and nothing has ever occurred to dispute this.

That the big bang theory happened is not expressed in terms of a probability, it is one theory to explain a whole bunch of things in the universe that are observed. Are you suggesting someone has said there is a 60% probability of the creation of the universe we know to be that and 40% something else?

And I'm not sure that black holes are theory. The observations of them are extensive and have allowed the construction of an interrelated set of predictions that have uniformly been valid. Speculation of what exactly becomes of matter when it crosses the even horizon is at this point theory though.

As to the building's designer, on the time scale that it takes to build a building, you are right. On the universe or even the earth, given the time scales I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am not saying that is the only way.
RNG is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 05:38 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I disagree. If you throw something up, unless you manage to cause a conditions that exert a force equal to or greater than the force of gravity, it will fall back down and nothing has ever occurred to dispute this.
From a purely rational point of view, taking into account all possibilities, there are a number of unforeseen events that could occur. A tornado, a killer wind could sweep it away or tear it apart, it could disintegrate on its own, it could land on the back of a large predatory bird or be swallowed in mid-air, or it could get sucked off the planet by an unexplained zero-gravitational force. It depends on the size, weight, composition and location of the object. But common sense reasoning says there is a 99.9+% probability that it will simply fall back in the general vicinity and condition in which it left. But it may be presumptive to say that such intervening events have never occurred ever in the history of the planet, that nothing has ever gone into the air and not returned. All we really have is what we have observed. And I'm okay with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That the big bang theory happened is not expressed in terms of a probability, it is one theory to explain a whole bunch of things in the universe that are observed. Are you suggesting someone has said there is a 60% probability of the creation of the universe we know to be that and 40% something else?
Not at all. I don't know that it is the kind of probability analysis that can be quantified in those terms. That would be rather like asking the % of probability that you could die tomorrow. Meaningless speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And I'm not sure that black holes are theory. The observations of them are extensive and have allowed the construction of an interrelated set of predictions that have uniformly been valid. Speculation of what exactly becomes of matter when it crosses the event horizon is at this point theory though.
That sums up what I was trying to say. Personally I find the event horizon discussion fascinating. Who really knows what goes on inside a black hole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
As to the building's designer, on the time scale that it takes to build a building, you are right. On the universe or even the earth, given the time scales I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am not saying that is the only way.
I see no reason to dispute that.
Asimov is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 05:42 PM   #36
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
From a purely rational point of view, taking into account all possibilities, there are a number of unforeseen events that could occur. A tornado, a killer wind could sweep it away or tear it apart, it could disintegrate on its own, it could land on the back of a large predatory bird or be swallowed in mid-air, or it could get sucked off the planet by an unexplained zero-gravitational force. It depends on the size, weight, composition and location of the object. But common sense reasoning says there is a 99.9+% probability that it will simply fall back in the general vicinity and condition in which it left. But it may be presumptive to say that such intervening events have never occurred ever in the history of the planet, that nothing has ever gone into the air and not returned. All we really have is what we have observed. And I'm okay with that.



Not at all. I don't know that it is the kind of probability analysis that can be quantified in those terms. That would be rather like asking the % of probability that you could die tomorrow. Meaningless speculation.



That sums up what I was trying to say. Personally I find the event horizon discussion fascinating. Who really knows what goes on inside a black hole?



I see no reason to dispute that.
I still disagree with your position on gravity. In each case you bring up, what is happening is exactly what I said, some force equal to or greater than that of gravity is present.

Other than that, we may merely be having a semantics discussion.
RNG is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:10 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 58,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I have no doubt that "the force" could track every human on earth. I know why governments and corporations would want to do so. I can't figure out why "the force" would want to....
We study insects. We study micro-organisms.

Frankly RNG, if intelligence sufficient to create a universe and periodic table of elements exists and life exists, I'd be floored to learn it had no interest in us.
imaginethat is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:24 PM   #38
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
We study insects. We study micro-organisms.

Frankly RNG, if intelligence sufficient to create a universe and periodic table of elements exists and life exists, I'd be floored to learn it had no interest in us.
Define us in that statement. It might be interested to see if the collective, given all the benefits and resources we have decide, as we seem to be doing, to kill ourselves off. But an interest in you or me as an individual, I can't see that.

The more I think about it, if there is "The Force" we are "The Force's" kid's science fair experiment.
RNG is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:53 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 58,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Define us in that statement. It might be interested to see if the collective, given all the benefits and resources we have decide, as we seem to be doing, to kill ourselves off. But an interest in you or me as an individual, I can't see that.

The more I think about it, if there is "The Force" we are "The Force's" kid's science fair experiment.
We'll never agree. I believe your attempt to understand the motives of intelligence that is capable of creating a universe and us through human analogs is failed from the onset.
imaginethat is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 08:40 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I still disagree with your position on gravity. In each case you bring up, what is happening is exactly what I said, some force equal to or greater than that of gravity is present.

Other than that, we may merely be having a semantics discussion.
It sounds like it.
Asimov is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion

Tags
creationists, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To Avoid Taxes Creationists Sell Ark Park To Themselves For $10 imaginethat Current Events 11 July 24th, 2017 12:46 PM
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence. Nwolfe35 Atheism 95 December 14th, 2013 07:43 AM
Why People Laugh at Creationists... tadpole256 Religion 6 September 4th, 2009 06:50 PM
How to Shut-Up Creationists... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 31st, 2009 09:08 PM
Hey Creationists! Explain this... tadpole256 Religion 34 July 31st, 2007 08:32 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.